 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 20062+2=5
as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 for the traveling guy 2+2=4 but for the stay at home guy 2+2=5 from the traveling guys point of view if someone had come today with this relativity he would never pass the perreviews > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if someone had come today with this relativity he would > never pass the perreviews Have you ever thought of some spelling lessons? It would help to do that first before attempting relativity.  SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Have you ever thought of some spelling lessons? It would help to do > that first before attempting relativity. spellings are for gays and fools like yourself you fool intelligent people dont need spellin machines if you are so foken stooped not understanding the paper, whay arent you stay at hom playin dools with your sister you stoopidb cocksucker > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan >> Have you ever thought of some spelling lessons? It would help to do >> that first before attempting relativity. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > paper, whay arent you stay at hom playin dools with > your sister you stoopidb cocksucker Oh its you again, the dyslexic idiot I had dancing last time. Got new dancing shoes for me? SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> Have you ever thought of some spelling lessons? It would help to do > >> that first before attempting relativity. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh its you again, the dyslexic idiot I had dancing last time. Got new > dancing shoes for me? dancin? what dancin you ment speed of light limis speed of sounds, you fool this is only becus you dont understand tha naturre of sound and interconfused EM propagation with particle colision you fooool, thanx > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan > dancin? what dancin > > you ment speed of light limis speed of sounds, you fool You have reading comprehension issues too? Oh how sad for you. > this is only becus you dont understand tha naturre of > sound and interconfused EM propagation with particle > colision No you were the one confused. Not that its not immediately obvious from your posts > you fooool, thanx Dance baby! SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > dancin? what dancin > > > > you ment speed of light limis speed of sounds, you fool > > You have reading comprehension issues too? Oh how sad for you. oh yeah right, it was about frequency, my bad the frequency of sound is limited by the speed of light becus a vibrating air molecule may not vibrate ftl, and you moron forgot that fermions may experience length contraction, so theoretical the frequency may be any, even infinity be honest, admit you were a fool, end of discusion > > this is only becus you dont understand tha naturre of > > sound and interconfused EM propagation with particle [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Carl Sagan > oh yeah right, it was about frequency, my bad > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > be honest, admit you were a fool, end of discusion Still rewriting the past? http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/393/part1/gerasimov.html MOVEMENT! The maximum possible frequency of sound in any medium is approximately 1.25 * 10^13 Hertz (Hz). The speed of sound depends on properties of the material through which it travels (see Table 1). Sound has propagation features quite different from that of light, which makes it an excellent alternative in situations where light does not work well. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > oh yeah right, it was about frequency, my bad > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it an excellent alternative in situations where light does not work > well. nevermind this bullshit, does not matter nor concern the discusion it was a gedanken discusion you fool, the speed of light doesnt limit fermions frequency and now, fok off > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan > nevermind this bullshit, > does not matter nor concern the discusion Its OK, it must hurt to be proved stupid again kook? > it was a gedanken discusion you fool, the speed > of light doesnt limit fermions frequency > > and now, fok off Why fermions and not bosons, kook? SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > nevermind this bullshit, > > does not matter nor concern the discusion > > Its OK, it must hurt to be proved stupid again kook? i am happy proven you a cocksucker, but please do some noise and sounds when you suck, stop sucking like a mut whay not askin you pretending knowin physics here speed of light limits frequency, in 50 posts long thread, ahaha http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8278e710978b65f6 then here at last, denying it http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ae895a76bad7ca73 you stoopid mothofaka might feel like sh.t > > it was a gedanken discusion you fool, the speed > > of light doesnt limit fermions frequency [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Carl Sagan > i am happy proven you a cocksucker, but please do > some noise and sounds when you suck, stop sucking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > you stoopid mothofaka might feel like sh.t Well anyone with any reading ability will see that thread makes you look like the idiot, so I am happy to repost it! SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > i am happy proven you a cocksucker, but please do > some noise and sounds when you suck, stop sucking > like a mut > > whay not askin you pretending knowin physics here > speed of light limits frequency, in 50 posts long thread, ahaha Read the IBM link, maroon. Perhaps someone here can translate it for you into that retarded dyslexic tone you put on in an attempt to seem impressive. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> i am happy proven you a cocksucker, but please do >> some noise and sounds when you suck, stop sucking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you into that retarded dyslexic tone you put on in an attempt to seem > impressive. Does this help? http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/ bout soun'. Soun' is radiant inergy transmitted in longitudinal waves thet cornsist of alternatin' compresshuns an' rarefackshuns in a medium, dawgone it. Th' maximum postible frequency of soun' in enny medium is approximately 1.25 × 1013 Hertz (Hz). Th' speed of soun' depends on rightties of th' material through which it travels (see Table 1). Soun' has propagashun features quite diffrunt fum thet of light, which makes it an excellent alternative in situashuns whar light does not wawk fine. Table 1 Speed of soun' in various media5 Medium Speed(m/second) Air at 0° C 331 (increases wif temperature an' pressure) Water 1400-1600 (increases wif temperature, salinity, an' depph) Lead 1210 Rolled aluminum 5000 Specialized imagin' applicashuns, e.g, acco'din' t' th' code o' th' heells!, ultrasonic microscopy an' echolocashun, make sophisticated use of soun'. Soun' may be a fine alternative fo' oppical computer vishun; fo' example, rather than tryin' t'reckanize varmints by imagin' their faces o' fingers in visible light, sonar technology kin be used t'measure unique hide pareemeters, sech as volooms, shapes, moshun, an' locashuns of diffrunt o'gans. But fo' the dawgoned-est part, th' use of soun' in computers an' communicashuns applicashuns has been limited t'moosic, simple soun' effecks, an' speech synthesis an' recognishun. (Notable 'ceptions include jool-tone modulashun frequency [DTMF] used in tellyphony an' various modulashuns used in modems an' facsimile machines. Howevah, modems an' faxes is pseudoacoestic devices an' kinnot effeckively communicut through air. They wawk fine only wif eleckric signals an' require a wire t'isolate th' system fum external disturbances.) SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> i am happy proven you a cocksucker, but please do > >> some noise and sounds when you suck, stop sucking [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > communicut through air. They wawk fine only wif eleckric signals an' > require a wire t'isolate th' system fum external disturbances.) you are talkin to yourself, nice this crap you post here deals with physics that discusion you been made a fool of yourself was not about physics but about relativity > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan > you are talkin to yourself, nice > > this crap you post here deals with physics > > that discusion you been made a fool of yourself > was not about physics but about relativity Whats the point? You're blissfully ignorant in both, simultaneously. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > you are talkin to yourself, nice > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Whats the point? You're blissfully ignorant in both, simultaneously. becus you say so, wahahaha, the honest readers only need to read the links to the thread i gave you are brilliant in your stupidity, thanks > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan > becus you say so, > > wahahaha, the honest readers only need to read the links to > the thread i gave Yep - where they will read the IBM research article that blows your stupidity out of the water. However you are, in your own words > you are brilliant in your stupidity, thanks So much so that you don't even realise you're wrong. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > becus you say so, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yep - where they will read the IBM research article that blows your > stupidity out of the water. However you are, in your own words if any ,than thay (IBM or whoever) are talkin about viscosity and such, classical mech concerns, you was xtalking about spped of light, there are no speeds of lights anyplaces in their explanations you are a coward fool we were about relativity, speed of light, length contraction in that thread you stated that speed of light put a limit on the frequency of a sound, so you were a fool thanks again, i won > > you are brilliant in your stupidity, thanks > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Carl Sagan > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if someone had come today with this relativity he would > never pass the perreviews Please supply your analysis of the equations of SR that give the alleged result. Sylvia. > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sylvia. you mean he need to write a paper about it? the traveling one counts to 4 till he arrive back, then discover that the stay at home counted to 5 do you need an abstract to it? >>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > do you need an abstract to it? How you justify the use of the arithmetic equality operator between these two quantities? The other day I drove to the city and back in one hour. A friend of mine used buses and trains, and took 2 hours. Can I claim that standard travel theory says that 2 = 1? I don't think so. It's like saying that 1 apple = 2 bananas, and is entirely meaningless. Sylvia. > >>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > used buses and trains, and took 2 hours. Can I claim that standard > travel theory says that 2 = 1? you say somthin here you mean the stay at home traveled too slow? > I don't think so. It's like saying that 1 apple = 2 bananas, and is > entirely meaningless. > > Sylvia. >>>>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > you mean the stay at home traveled too slow? You, or the OP (if not the same) asserts that in SR 2 + 2 = 5. Absent some sort of analysis to justify the claim, one might reasonably assume that the assertion is simply false. Sylvia. > >>>>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >>used buses and trains, and took 2 hours. Can I claim that standard > >>travel theory says that 2 = 1? here it comes for both of you the counting goes up to either 1 or 2 at the same time this doent happen in relativity do you still need an abstract? > > you say somthin here > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sylvia. > here it comes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > do you still need an abstract? Yes it does, you are just confused. Confused about the lack of a universal time, and confused in general. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > here it comes > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes it does, you are just confused. Confused about the lack of a > universal time, and confused in general. you mean the counts are the same for everybody in relativity? what are you crazzy? > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan > you mean the counts are the same for everybody in relativity? > > what are you crazzy? Read up on the nature of time in relativity. Wikipedia doesn't use too many big words. And stop morphing, kook. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > you mean the counts are the same for everybody in relativity? > > > > what are you crazzy? > > Read up on the nature of time in relativity. Wikipedia doesn't use too > many big words. indeed, you must be tha author wahahahah > And stop morphing, kook. > -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Carl Sagan > >>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I don't think so. It's like saying that 1 apple = 2 bananas, and is > entirely meaningless. Ah....but in SR the traveling twin counts 4 years with his clock and the stay at home twin counts 5 years with his clock. It seems that the OP is right. > Sylvia. >>>>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > stay at home twin counts 5 years with his clock. It seems that the OP is > right. If the travelling twin leaves his clock at home, then it will show 5 years. Sylvia. > >>>>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > If the travelling twin leaves his clock at home, then it will show 5 years. But the OP's point is that 4 years in the traveling clock is equal to 5 years in the stay at home clock. So what is your point? >>>>>>>as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > But the OP's point is that 4 years in the traveling clock is equal to 5 > years in the stay at home clock. So what is your point? He's equating the times shown on two different clocks that have been subject to different processes. It makes no sense to do that, and any purported conclusion is invalid. Sylvia. > you mean he need to write a paper about it? > > the traveling one counts to 4 till he arrive back, then > discover that the stay at home counted to 5 > > do you need an abstract to it? You can tell Kindergarten's finished for Christmas. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if someone had come today with this relativity he would > never pass the perreviews Must you do physics? -- Jan Bielawski > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Must you do physics? why, relativity is physics!? since when? > -- > Jan Bielawski >>> as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > why, relativity is physics!? since when? Well once you graduate Kindergarten you'll learn lots of new things. Tying your own shoe laces, for example... SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>> as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well once you graduate Kindergarten you'll learn lots of new things. > Tying your own shoe laces, for example... well, i can see you are a stooopi fool like pudelduck the most graduate phds nad post phds are doing physics not relativity not knowing this make you the moron of the year 2006 thanks for tha laugh > -- > > For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to > persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. > > Carl Sagan > well, i can see you are a stooopi fool like pudelduck > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > thanks for tha laugh Dance kooky! SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > why, relativity is physics!? since when? Sure it is. What planet do you live on? -- Jan Bielawski >>>> as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sure it is. What planet do you live on? The kid in me is saying "Uranus" and giggling ;-) SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sure it is. What planet do you live on? are you implying that relativity makes no sense on other planets? are you a fool? well, i can see you are a stooopi fool like pudelduck the most graduate phds nad post phds are doing physics not relativity not knowing this make you the moron of the year 2006 thanks for tha laugh > -- > Jan Bielawski > the most graduate phds nad post phds are doing physics > not relativity > > not knowing this make you the moron of the year 2006 > > thanks for tha laugh And what did you last do in school? Colouring in? Or perhaps a nice tissue paper montage for teacher? SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > the most graduate phds nad post phds are doing physics > not relativity > > not knowing this make you the moron of the year 2006 > > thanks for tha laugh Weather nice in Thailand? SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > are you implying that relativity makes no sense on other planets? No, my train of thought was that you are not competent enough to judge. Normally a person knows instinctively when to stop. > are you a fool? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > thanks for tha laugh N/A. -- Jan Bielawski > > > > > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No, my train of thought was that you are not competent enough to judge. how could you possibly know it > Normally a person knows instinctively when to stop. you, saying that relativity is physics, knowing that the most of the phyisics oriented universities around the world doesnt preach useless relativity saying this, than tha another one would be incopetent, makes you look funny > > are you a fool? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Jan Bielawski > you, saying that relativity is physics, knowing that the most > of the phyisics oriented universities around the world doesnt > preach useless relativity Bollocks. Absolute nonsense. Try talking out of your mouth, not your arse. > saying this, than tha another one would be incopetent, makes > you look funny Your posts make you look funny. SignatureFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > > > > > as different from other domains, in relativit 2+2=5 > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > how could you possibly know it You make claims, you prove them. You can't prove them, you are incompetent. > > Normally a person knows instinctively when to stop. > > you, saying that relativity is physics, knowing that the most > of the phyisics oriented universities around the world doesnt > preach useless relativity False. As prose it's OK. > saying this, than tha another one would be incopetent, makes > you look funny I cannot parse this sentence. -- Jan Bielawski |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.